13
comments:

I was reminded myself, after reading Marvin Olasky's recent article on Meyer in World Magazine, of the 'Climategate' debacle. In the Scientific world of Universities and Journals, skepticism of Macro-evolution is treated with a similar disdain as non-adherence to Global Warming.

But really, it is the difference, in consequences, that is crucial to note: With global warming, whether it is true or not or one believes in it or not, doesn't really matter in the "big picture"--polar icecaps may or may not melt, etc., but life will go on. With evolution--the theory, if used as a reason for complete disbelief in God--the consequences encompass the eternal.

The new mantra: Separation of Church, State, and Science?

Theologian Lesslie Newbigin asserts that the dualism of Renee Descartes was one of the primary roots of modern society's intellectual dichotomy (faith vs. science): "[from the starting point "I think, therefore I am," Descartes] moved to the idea of God--but a God who is essentially an implicate of the human idea of perfection, and to the material world which belongs to a totally different order of existence from the mind. In this dualistic world God could influence the human mind, but he could not act upon the material world itself. Many writers have commented on the way in which Descartes' dualism has shaped the whole of our subsequent thinking, creating a dichotomy which runs right through our culture..."

Nancy Pearcey, in her book "Total Truth" explores this dichotomy. (I highly recommend this excellent book, which is heavily footnoted and an excellent resource.)

Once one accepts the idea that given enough time mud can turn itself into a man by accident, accepting other self-refuting ideas (like 'we need to spend more money to keep from going bankrupt', or 'we must abandon free market principles to save the free market') is probably easy by comparison.

Americans continue to vote for men that vow to spend more money to corrupt the mind of every child that they can -- and make them believe that creation by God is a lie and that accidental combinations of non-living material produced every living thing, including man -- though they term it 'education'. And as long as the citizens of this country and its various states continue to do so, they are foolish to think that the God "who created the heavens and the earth" would bless them for endorsing (with their vote) the intentional corruption of the minds of these little ones. It may be that by continuing to cast their votes for leaders who drink the evolution kool-aid (and who will use taxpayer dollars to force the children of this country to do likewise), American voters are tying the millstone around their own necks.

Meyer is a wonderful expositor of the complexity and significance of molecular biology, continuing in the work begun by Micheal Behe. But perhaps the greatest hurdle faced by scientists attempting to inform the public about the fundamental advances in biological sciences is that the modern understanding of molecular biology does not rely on any "peculiar characteristics of living matter."

Darwin (like almost all biologists and indeed human beings throughout history) assumed that biological material was somehow fundamentally different from all inorganic chemistry. The thought that there is some magical "elan vital" within living material which 'strives' to keep life going is a fundamental necessity of Darwinist evolution (that is, adaptation by random mutation and natural selection).

Modern molecular biology has proven that the elements and chemicals within a living organism obey the exact same physical laws that govern all other matter. There is no magical "essence of life" which alters probabilities in favor of survival of an organism, no special chemical reactions which can only occur when 'life' is present. Thus, if the organism is to have the benefits of the unusual properties we associate with living things, the material composition of the constituent elements is going to be highly ordered, and anything random is going to have a destructive rather than beneficial effect.

One does not expect a car to fix, feed, or reproduce itself, unless some pretty advanced technology has been implemented to create such functions. That the far more complex mechanisms on which all life is based are capable of doing so cannot be due to any inherent magical properties of life, because the advance of science has proven that, at the molecular level, the presence or absence of "life" does not affect the chemical reactions that occur. If one begins to randomly change parts of that system, this is not beneficial mutation which 'life' can use for adaptation but damage to the underlying basis for maintaining the properties associated with living organisms.

In theory, once a living organism has been set in motion, with the ability to reproduce itself and repair minor damage by drawing on some effectively limitless supply of energy, it can evolve through random mutation and natural selection. But the threshold of beneficial mutation is damage too fundamental to be repaired and yet not fatal to the organism's chances of continued survival. Without any magical principle which alters the laws of chemistry to be more 'favorable' to the organism, this margin is very small. With the particular mechanisms of life as science now understands it (taken as an already going concern), significant evolution can occur only with periods of time thousands or millions of times greater than the estimated age of the universe itself.

And the length of time it takes for the molecular basis of life to become established (in a hospitable environment) by blind chance is not even calculable by ordinary means.

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." As it turns out, the instruments available for studying biology during his time (chiefly the human eye and imagination) were insufficient to allow him to perceive that the complex molecular structures on which all life is based were just such organs.

If we imagine "protoplasm" as capable of slowly 'learning' various ways to form the characteristic features and functions of any living organism through 'trial and error', it is easy to make the case that Darwinian evolution is possible. But when examination of the molecular chemistry of all living material finds no such principle in evidence, we are forced to discard it as an explanation for how "beneficial accidents" can advance the order and complexity of living organisms. There is no "blind watchmaker" to be found busily turning random damage to the complex molecular structures into improvements which will benefit the organism.

Well, there are some who claim that my attention to this point is motivated by an inherently anti-life bias. I would argue that the assumption that living material is fundamentally different from non-living material, particularly in the light of modern scientific evidence to the contrary, is the result of a pro-life bias. It is probably true that I have less of this bias than most humans. It is also the case that the underlying reasons I lack such a bias are readily characterized as evil. But in this case, science is opposed to the naive assumption of the living.

I am still meditating on "Being an American - What Makes the Difference?"

I do not think most people in America have ANY idea WHAT an American is because they have been given everything. Look at our children. A radio host made a quip the other day about teenage girls having no thumbprints from texting. WHY DO THEY EVEN HAVE PHONES WITH NO JOBS? It was a funny line about an all too sad reality.

The answer to the above question tells a lot about our society. We are excessive and spoiled. Possibly beyond repair without a very sad and frightful situation occurring in our country on the scale of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor combined. And that will only keep us awake for the amount of time it takes to get the stock market and Broadway back on course.

We have not lost direction. We have chosen to go the other way. We tolerate that which we should not because we are told by people who we honestly believe are smarter than us that we are intolerant. Given warning, even an animal is smarter than we are...

Maybe this Christmas, people across this country should take more than a moment to think about the greatness of GOD - what we have deemed as the right time to celebrate the birth of Christ. Even that is a governmental joke on us. More than a moment to feel good about ourselves because we fed the homeless or purchased a gift for an Angel Tree recipient. Maybe we should come up with a more serious plan of action than to say we are gonna vote people out of office, only to vote another idiot with great memorization skills, a talent (if you will) for lying and mastery of the English language, into that office.

Did JESUS come to Earth for this to happen in America? What DO we want for the next 5-10 years in this country, much less to leave the next generation?

Are we willing, at Christmas, to say we are going to tolerate speaking Spanish and worshiping a false god, the black rock of Mecca, all because our "leaders" say we are not a Christian nation and we, as a SOVEREIGN nation and people, are intolerant? All because we want a fake form of peace that we know in our hearts is unachievable as long as we let the weak, uneducated and seriously demented take our country away from our children.

That is the road we are choosing to take if we allow our country to continually be molded into something our founding fathers would not recognize. Times change but GOD'S precepts and laws do not. If we do not get it together and do it soon, we may be celebrating Ramadan in Spanish before too long...

I once firmly believed in evolution, having learned it in college science classes. In my later years I read books by scientists who do not believe in evolution. It was eye-opening. I hadn't realized just how weak the arguments for evolution are, and how narrow-minded and biased so-called scientists can be when protecting a pet theory.

Even the simplest living cell has enormous complexity. Evolutionary theorists have not been able to describe a path by which chemicals in a mud puddle or tide pool could progressively arrange themselves in order to produce the simplest cell.

Then there is the mathematical improbability of evolution. One scientist described it as this: The evolution of man from random events is about as likely as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and producing a fully operational Boeing 707.

Actually, the origin of organic life itself by any non-purposive process is about as likely as a tornado assembling a fully operational jetliner (which can fuel, repair, and replicate itself) out of naturally occurring debris. But once you have that done, the odds of evolution are more like the odds that squirrels will accidentally fly the plane (or one of its many descendants) to a given destination and land it safely. Still basically impossible, and you certainly wouldn't want to be on any given flight, but not as unimaginable.

And, let's be fair. As recently as a half-century ago science had no real idea just how complex life was at the molecular level. People back then really thought exposure to radiation was likely to give you superpowers (not scientists, but even they radically underestimated the dangers of random mutation back then). It was widely considered almost impossible that any but the most inhospitable of planets would not have abundant life.

Today we regard such conclusions--which follow logically from an acceptance of Darwinian evolution--with a mixture of amusement and contempt. Where X implies Y, not Y implies not X. The absence of X-men fighting aliens for control of Earth definitively disproves Darwin's theory of evolution.

I wish you could bury a cash for clunker and get a $50,000 vehicle with no hidden taxes. I would be the hit of the party at granny's for Christmas! Hope you all have a Merry Christmas and pray that GOD will protect us from the "health" "care" takeover!

Great article Alan! Let me first begin by saying that the most frightening thing happening currently in our country is the lack of true christian leaders. We have been taught or brainwashed rather that the faith does not belong in the public square. The education of our children regarding the christian roots and biblical economic principals of this nation seems to be our only hope. I fear that the current situation is only the beginning of the ugly dragon rearing its red head. I ask that we all pray daily to the Lord for the fullfilment of 2 Chronicles 7:14 "THat if my People who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and turn from their wicked ways I will hear from heaven and heal their land". Thank you and God Bless

I like the latest proclamation from the geniuses who study evolution - "Perhaps we need to look at the possiblity something can come from nothing." Brilliant! I wonder if they have a difficult time deciding which side of their toast to butter.

Still today the Church is vilified for excommunicating Galileo. Her "crime"? Believing the Earth is the center of the universe because God considers it the center of our "spiritual" universe, sending His only begotten Son to save us.

I prefer a God-centered scientific inquiry. Without it, you get Marx, Hitler, Sanger, et al. Barabaric eugenicists who see it as their duty to help evolution along.

"Perhaps we need to look at the possiblity something can come from nothing." (Dawg_em)

Reminder. From that statement I am reminded of an article I once read in Discover magazine. The cover story dealt with the 'big bang'. On the cover of this particular magazine was a picture of what appeared to be just a marble. The caption beneath the photograph read "Actual size of the universe at 10 to the minus 44 power seconds." What a concept.

The arrogance of these self-professed scientists is amazing. Two actual dogmas of science are that not everything is knowable and that some things we know are not in the realm of science.

Rather than deal with rational evidence for or against evolution, so-called scientists have wandered into mere philosophy when trying to push random causation. A real scientist would not be worried about whether or not God exists and directs the universe.

Instead, we have charlatans screaming that lack of proof is proof of lacking when it comes to God, but lack of proof is proof of the veracity of evolutionary theory (e.g., see punctuated equilibrium). Both proofs are utterly unscientific and undignified. Since Descartes and Laplace, "science" has wholly dedicated itself to removing any notion of a Creator, which has led to science itself becoming anti-scientific.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

Terry Lakin explains seeking Obama eligibility proof

FEATURED LINK

Support This Site

Friends of Liberty:

The content I share on Loyal To Liberty takes a good deal of time and effort to prepare. It's offered in the hope that it will prove helpful to people trying to think through the challenges of faithful citizenship during this time of deep crisis for the republican form of government in the United States.

The site is, as it were, freeware, but of course its maintenance and efforts like the pursuit of the facts about Obama's eligibility eat up a lot of man-hours. Your donation will help me and those who work with me. So please click the button below and help out to whatever extent you can. No amount is too small. When everyone chips in, the 'widow's mite' is mighty. Thank you and Godspeed.(If you would rather send a check or money order make it out to Alan Keyes and send it to: Alan Keyes, PO Box 83759, Gaithersburg, MD 20883.)

THOUGHTLET-The Enemy of my Enemy is ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I've never been sure the old maxim made much sense. It gives your enemies rather too much control over the identification of your friends. What's more, it allows people who really aren't your friends to identify themselves as such just by opposing your enemies. Doesn't that make it easier for your enemies to plant agents in your midst with no more effort than it takes to stage a phony brawl?Because they live in such a hostile media environment, conservatives are all too willing to embrace any media voice that seems to take on their left wing opponents. But this means that at critical moments (particularly when it comes to personnel choices) they will be susceptible to information provided by people who have only been fighting with their enemies in order to get into a better position to do in the people whose sincerity, ability and leadership offer conservatives the greatest promise of success.In this regard I have observed that the most important information conservatives can get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel is silence: the things and people Fox positively ignores. You can be sure someone you know to be conservative is standing firm for what's right when you can't remember the last time you saw or heard anything positive about them on Fox News. Think of all the reporting they've done on the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.Listen to the silence. Better yet, learn from it.

Visit Me on Facebook

THOUGHTLET "A little thought (that) goes a long way."

During my service as an Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State under President Reagan, a quiet but constant tug of war went on between the Reagan conservatives and the Bush Republicans, though supposedly all of us were pulling in the same direction.My brief as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations (IO- the bureau that, among other things, keeps track of the goings-on at the United Nations)included implementing Reagan's policy of withholding U.S. contributions to the UN until real management reforms were agreed upon and carried forward.I also got involved with issues that reflected Reagan's principled pro-life stands, and his strong commitment to defend Israel from the Arab inspired lynch mob more or less permanently on call throughout the UN system during those years.

Apparently one of the more polite terms of opprobrium the Bush forces used to pan conservatives like me was that we were excessively "ideological".To tell the truth, I always wore the intended slight as a badge of honor, sinceit signified theirreaction to my consistent efforts to make sure my actions served the ideas and principles Reagan stood for.

Meanwhile whether in or out of power the leftists who control the Democrat party have had no qualms about being "excessively ideological."While the Bush Republicans obligingly kept real conservatives running in place throughout their years of pre-eminence (while sopping them periodically with rhetoric and phony gestures of support), the Democrats looked for ways to promote their agenda of abortion, state atheism, and the erosive destruction of the traditional family (It's the major obstacle to totalitarian government control of the society.)Now that the leftists are surging with confidence, Obama shows no qualms about promoting "excessively ideological" extremists like Chas Freeman and Kathleen Sebelius to positions of controlling authority in the areas where they can do the most harm (from a conservative point of view.)Instead of running in place, they're poised to rush forward, like a good running back exploiting the chink of daylight that signals the way to at least a first down and who knows what more beyond that.

When are conservatives going to wake up and ponder the fact that the acronym for Running In Place is- R.I.P.

Share the Blessings of Liberty

THOUGHTLET

As I consider the reaction to my statement that Obama is a communist, I realize how thoroughly the Obama faction's media claque takes advantage of the ignorance even of those who are supposed to be educated and sophisticated spokespeople for conservative views. In this respect I am somewhat disadvantaged by my relatively small stake in this ignorance when it comes to political theory and ideology. For instance, people tend to associate the term "communist" with the violent takeover of government and society. Yet a thoroughly committed communist like Italy's Antonio Gramsci developed an understanding of the nature of political control, and therefore the path to power over a society, far more sophisticated than Marx's economic determinism. (Or was it in fact a more sophisticated understanding of economics?) It was therefore better suited to understanding and exploiting the "ideological" (i.e., spiritual and moral) vulnerabilities of the opponents of communism. In particular, his theories allowed for far greater use of cultural influences (the news and entertainment media, churches and other religious institutions, movements like "gay rights" that contribute to the destruction of moral institutions like the family, etc.) than some people associate with the term "communism". They helped later leftists to understand, explain and avoid (by learning from and adapting the enemy's tactics) defeats like those that fascism inflicted on mid-twentieth century communism in Italy and elsewhere.Reading Gramsci, one senses that he is looking at the intellectual framework for the Obama faction's secret strategic plan. As Sherlock Holmes knew, there's sometimes no hiding place more secure than one that is in plain sight. Especially in an era when the leftist takeover of education produces fewer and fewer people in each generation who bother to read books, especially the ones without pictures in them. (There's a good summary of Gramsci's thinking at http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm)

THOUGHTLET

Apparently most of the people in Congress who voted on the so-called stimulus package had no time to read it, even superficially. That might seem like fodder for a late night comedy routine, until it occurs to you to wonder who did read it? After all, if the elected representatives of the people are just rubber stamping legislation prepared for them by others, its drafters are the ones dictating the decision. Congress sinks into the role reserved for the People's Congresses in places like North Korea or the now defunct Soviet Union. How quickly the substance of constitutional self-government is being turned into the perfunctory sham characteristic of stolid party dictatorships ruled from the background by a handful of unaccountable little despots.

How many Americans wake up every day longing to live under party dictators, worshiping at the altar of a propagandized personality cult, in a world where party hacks offer the only hope of relief from bureaucratic tyranny? All in exchange for a surfeit of meaningless sex and the license to kill your unwanted offspring.

I used always to think of places under communist yoke as regions languishing under perpetually cloudy skies. Actually though, it wasn't the sun's light it cut off, but the light of true human personality. Would any sane people exchange even the worst risks of life in freedom for such soul stifling banality? Will we?

Liberty Loyalists

Subscribe To Loyal To Liberty

THOUGHTLET

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not a thought likely to occur to anyone thinking about the banking system these days. It's broke alright. Insolvency is the word of the day, along with that other word, nationalization. Funny how so many people who think the nation state has effectively ceased to exist when it comes to borders and immigration suddenly rediscover its powers when it's time to take over the banks.

"But Alan," you protest "we badly need a solution." Which, I reply, is not a good reason to accept a bad one. In fact , if things have gotten as bad as they say, maybe we should step back so as to let our thinking leap forward.

True, If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. But if it's really broke, you don't fix it either, you throw it away and replace it with something that works better. Instead of taking the bad logic of a failed centralized banking system to its logical conclusion (total centralization), replace the logic with something more suited to the twenty-first century. The twentieth century was all about bigger, more regulated and extensive organization. The hallmark of the twenty-first is the network, the model work-in-progress of which is the internet. It depends on decentralized, individual units, that reach out and form communities based on direct interaction and mutual assessment, rather than a centrally determined distribution of information (like a central bank's fixing the interest rate.)

If the present banking system is failing- let it fail. That's the first step in preparing the way for the emergence of twenty-first century financial networks. Instead of pretending that bankrupt governments can magically save a bankrupt system, accept the fact that the financial Titanic is sinking. Get people out of it, and use what resources we have to construct and launch the fleet of lifeboats in which they can distance themselves from the vortex it causes as it goes down. What I think we'll discover is that the new system we need will emerge from the resulting fleet, as we use twenty-first century tools to turn it into a floating net that won't be susceptible to the cascading disasters of the obsolete vessel. This deserves longer thought, which I give it in the essay Real Change Step Two: Replacing the Federal Reserve.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

THOUGHTLET

I think it's not an accident that the American founders spoke of the people as a body (that is an organic whole), but the leftist proto-totalitarians that tutor socialists like Obama speak of them as "the masses." A mass is composed of conceptually identical parts, whereas the body is an organic whole in which each part is defined and differentiated by its individual purpose with respect to the whole. Is this why there are so many examples of totalitarian regimes that treat people as if they are mounds of dirt to be shaped and repressed, used or discarded (killed) without respect for their individuality? This totalitarian mentality finds a counterpart in the approach that claims to deal with human affairs scientifically, on the assumption that people are no different than other merely physical things.

Here is an audio compilation of the Thoughtlets I post every now and then. I'm making them available as a podcast at http://loyaltoliberty.podbean.com/. They are also accessible as an audio feed. Visit the site, and spread the word. The little thoughts are now consumable as little soundbites. They could be a great way to introduce Loyal to Liberty to people you know.

THOUGHTLETS (Podcast)

About Your Host

For a long while I have been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. I am Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the republican form of government it establishes. I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect; For God, Liberty and the Constitution.

THOUGHTLET

What signals the difference between a "socialist" and a "communist"? It's the gradual repression of political and civil liberty culminating in the open prosecution and suppression of dissident views. But this suppression cannot come about until a monopoly has been established over access to the seats of government executive and decision making power. The key manifestation of this monopoly is of course some form of party dictatorship.

Aside from all the evidence in his known background, associates, policy preferences and political actions one of the main reasons I make bold to call Obama a communist is his grab for unchecked partisan control over the conduct of the next census. Skillful manipulation of the census could make the decisive contribution to establishing an electorally unchallengeable party monopoly, which would then provide the basis for consolidating party dictatorship. If such dictatorship were not part of their agenda, the Obama faction would leave ultimate oversight of the census process where the Constitution places it, in the hands of the legislative branch. As it clearly is part of their agenda, only ignorance or willful stupidity blinds people to Obama's ambition to establish a better tailored version of Soviet-style government in the U.S.

Of course, there may be another name for what keeps some of the so-called Republicans from speaking out about it. Could it be cowardice?

Copyright Regulations

All material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog.

Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty

You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog.

Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website.

Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included.

Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes.

Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made.

If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website,permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

THOUGHTLET

Everyone's fussing over whether the Alleged Usurper's stimulus plan will help or hurt the economy. Are they missing the point? Massive taxpayer resources are being pumped into Obama's powerbase. His cohorts grow stronger, while the larger economic impact of the plan makes everyone else weaker. Not much of a recovery plan, but a great strategy for securing power.

Then there are all those Hamas loving Palestinians he's using taxpayer money to bring to the U.S. After 9/11 the Palestinians danced in their streets. This time they won't have far to go to dance on our graves.